Introduction
The concept of “democracy” originated in ancient Greece. In the 20th century, almost all political forces declared themselves adherents of democracy, starting with anarchists, communists, national socialists, fascists, ending with liberals and conservatives, not to mention the social democrats. Any political regime, whether it be authoritarian or totalitarian, declared its goal to be the establishment of true democracy. By the end of the 20th century, the struggle for democracy and human rights became the main field of ideological and political struggle of Western countries with the regimes of the countries of the so-called "socialist camp", after the fall of which the idea of democracy received the force of a categorical imperative.
What does democracy mean? Is it the decision-making system of the population of the country? Is it the decision-making system of the population of the country? A system of social organization of society based on universal equality, ensuring social guarantees and human rights? All this combined, or something els?
Given the urgency of the problem, it became necessary to revisit these issues.
In the current critical state of affairs, we are faced with the question: is it worth wasting time on considering the basic theoretical provisions related to the organization of public life, public administration, models and prospects for economic, social, political development, their ideological, information support, resolution critical and conflict problems and situations? It would be naive to assume that people live exclusively guided by the laws of political science. The daily practice of many politicians, state authorities and administrations shows that their activities are often built without any serious analysis, contrary to the recommendations developed on the basis of a generalization of world experience.
As the Armenian experience also shows, decisions are often made on the basis of strong-willed attitudes of various politicians, starting from spontaneous, opportunistic processes, with a strong focus on achieving narrow corporate or populist goals. Unfortunately, such management of the most complex systems, such as society and the state, leads in the overwhelming majority of cases to unsatisfactory results. A good knowledge of the scientific foundations, the ability to apply them in practice is an indispensable component of the competencies required by statesmen and politicians.
But no less naivete is the conviction of some newly-minted figures that if they studied certain courses of political science or management in well-known universities and scientific centers, then the obtained “bookish” knowledge is quite sufficient for successful management of the real spheres of state and social activity. That operating with beautiful definitions taken from various sources, primarily English and Russian, compensates for the lack of real experience in specific conditions with very concrete specifics.
One of the main political foundations and goals of the change of power in Armenia in 2018, which is commonly called the “non-violent velvet revolution”, and the attempts to carry out the promised changes, was the idea that power should belong to the people, and it must be returned to them, taken away from corrupt oligarchic pseudo-elite.
It was about the fact that the only sovereign power in the country is the people who have the right to exercise it directly. It is he who must make decisions that determine the fate of the country. In other words, can we talk about the idea of a transition to a system of exercising political power, which is usually called direct or direct democracy? This thesis was reaffirmed by Prime Minister N. Pashinyan at the congress of the Civil Contract party on 10/29/2022. But the question remains unanswered, what do the people declaring these slogans really mean by people's democracy? But without a concrete understanding of the essence and organizational forms of these concepts and institutions, a serious mastery of the mechanisms and methods for their implementation, these “good intentions” could hardly have had a chance to be implemented. Everything will be limited to populist slogans and statements.
In 2021, Pashinyan received votes, promising them to do everything so that Artsakh would not be part of Azerbaijan, to achieve the de-occupation of Shusha and Hadrut in Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh). Today, he recognizes Artsakh as a part of Azerbaijan, evading in every possible way a referendum on the issue of determining the future fate of Artsakh. The same applies to the territories of Armenia, which he calls "enclaves" and is ready to transfer them to Azerbaijan as well. According to the survey, the majority of the polled citizens of the Republic of Armenia oppose this. But they also ignore the will of the people, whom the current leaders of power call the sovereign of state power.
Originating in ancient Greece, the concept of "democracy" is translated precisely as "the power of the people", although in antiquity many, including Plato and Aristotle, considered it far from the best form of government. This is due to the fact that the ancient Greeks called "demos" the lowest, poorest strata of the people, and, accordingly, the less educated and wealthy - both intellectually and socially. Almost until the 19th century, democracy was associated with the concept of "power of the crowd", "power of the plebs" and was perceived negatively.
A powerful stimulus for the reassessment of values was the adoption in the United States of the Declaration of Independence in 1786 and the Constitution in 1787. Subsequently, a number of amendments were adopted to the basic law of the United States, slavery was prohibited and women were given the right to vote. The idea of democracy began to conquer the minds not only in North America, but also in Europe, becoming a political dominant, and gradually spread to all continents.
What does democracy mean? Is it the decision-making system of the population of the country? The system of political power, government, the formation of power structures? A system of social organization of society based on universal equality, ensuring social guarantees and human rights? All this combined, or something else, something else?
In order to answer these questions, it is necessary first of all to understand what the components of the concept of democracy are, namely: what is “demos”, or people, and what is “kratos” (or power).
Let's start with demos. We talked about the fact that in the “cradle of democracy”, in ancient Greece, the concept of demos covered the poorest strata, naturally excluding women, slaves and strangers, and in this application only adult men were understood as people, and not the entire population. Democracy was perceived as the dominance of this particular layer, this part of the entire people through direct participation in decision-making, the exercise of political power. Plato believed that democracy as a form of government is possible only in policies, city-states, where there are no more than 40 thousand people. And if we consider the history of the formation and development of democracy in Europe and North America, it is not difficult to see that serious restrictions existed for a long time. They were mainly age, gender, racial, social, legal.
Some of these restrictions, primarily age and legal, continue to exist today. In the political sphere, they refer to representative democracy - the right to vote, as well as to some aspects of direct democracy - the right to participate in referendums, plebiscites. Sovereign rights here are granted only to a part of the people-demos, to those who are legally endowed with the right to vote. But what about such forms of manifestation of the will of the people as rallies, demonstrations and other actions recognized as attributes of democracy? The March 2018 rallies in Armenia were actively attended by students from schools and other educational institutions, whose age hardly met the criteria for full political and civic capacity. Many representatives of the political force at the forefront of the movement considered their participation reasonable and justified. Is it possible in this case to consider minors as part of the “people”, keeping in mind, of course, not the demographic, but the political meaning of this concept?
Is it possible to appeal to the concept of the people outside the context of the socio-economic structure of society, its social and political organization, professional, religious, ethnic and other groups? Leaving aside also the characteristics of existing social institutions as elements of the social structure with their own specific role and status; in a broader sense - a set of regulations and rules that ensure correct and predictable behavior, the "rules of the game"?
Is it possible to ignore the issue of the ratio of the masses and the elite (or elites), which has always been relevant in Armenian history and is especially topical at the present time? By the way, a well-known historian and philologist, Corresponding Member. The Armenian Academy of Sciences, Morus Hasratyan, whose teachers were Manuk Abeghyan, Rachia Acharyan, Hakob Manandyan, Leo and others, considered the absence of aristocracy as a social category in Armenian society over the past centuries as a great misfortune for the people.
The question also arises, is the entire population of the country a people, or only persons with citizenship? It is especially important for those nations that have foreign diasporas, whose representatives can live in their historical homeland for a long time, having received a permanent residence permit.
As you can see, the concept of the people, which is often appealed to by many political figures, including in Armenia, is still only an indefinite “something”, an abstract instance that has not yet been disclosed, therefore it is still very poor and uninformative.
In addition, always, in any society, there are serious disagreements and conflicts of interest between its different social strata and groups. Should we recognize as the will of the people their collectively integrated will, shaped by consensus? Or should preference be given to the will of the majority? Is this not an infringement of the rights of the minority, a departure from the principles of democracy?
Obviously, we are here coming to the conclusion that in order to understand the meaning of "demos" in the definition of "democracy", we cannot do without considering "kratos", i.e. power, as the second component of the two components of this concept, which are inseparable unity.
Such a definition is very common: power is the ability to impose one's will on other people, even in spite of their resistance. In a more complete form, such an understanding of power is formulated as follows: power in a broad sense is the possibility and ability to determine the actions and behavior of people, the attitude of the dominant and subordinate will; a special kind of influence through the threat or application of sanctions for non-compliance with its requirements.
But there are questions. First, who is the subject and who is the object of power influence? Secondly, in what sphere of public life are such power relations applicable? To the social, in particular, to the family? To spiritual, economic, military? Or is it just the political sphere? And if it is about this, does the relationship between the subject and the object come down here only to coercion, the imposition of an authoritative will, the application of sanctions and punishments?
Such a definition is very common: power is the ability to impose one's will on other people, even in spite of their resistance. In a more complete form, such an understanding of power is formulated as follows: power in a broad sense is the ability and ability to determine the actions and behavior of people, the attitude of the dominant and subordinate will; a special kind of influence through the threat or application of sanctions for non-compliance with its requirements.
But there are questions. First, who is the subject and who is the object of power influence? Secondly, in what sphere of public life are such power relations applicable? To the social, in particular, to the family? To spiritual, economic, military? Or is it just the political sphere? And if it is about this, does the relationship between the subject and the object come down here only to coercion, the imposition of an authoritative will, the application of sanctions and punishments?
Since our task is to consider "kratos" as a component of the concept of "democracy", then we will have to address the problems of power relations in the social, economic, military, spiritual and other spheres only to the extent that they are related to the functioning of such a public institution, which called the state.
The concept of power is often associated with the State, understood as an institution of coercion, and sometimes even oppression. In the totality of institutions through which this coercion is implemented, in the first place, of course, are the organs of state administration, primarily the executive branch, in whatever form they would not exist - the government or the president as the head, de facto or de jure head of the executive branch, and carrying out, according to Max Weber, legalized violence.
In this sense, the state is the subject of power. This is the government, the courts, the president, the legislature and other structures created to govern the country. And the object of power is the people who inhabit this country.
There is also such a definition of the state: “it is an institution that has the exclusive power to introduce certain rules of social behavior in a given geographical region” (Ayn Rand, The Nature of the State, “Capitalism. An Unfamiliar Ideal”, p. 616, Moscow, Alpina Publisher , 2019)
In a slightly different sense, the state is an institution that maintains the established order in it, capable of developing collective decisions and implementing them. From this point of view, public administration is a set of institutional processes through which the sovereignty and defense capability of the country is ensured at the national level, law and order are maintained, and public actions are carried out. The central functions of the state are the development and adoption of laws (legislation), their implementation (mechanisms of executive power) and their interpretation (judicial system).
At the same time, in the totality of managerial relations that exist in society and which can be called a macro-management system, the government and the state as a whole are, although the most important, but only one of the institutions of public macro-management. An important component here are all kinds of networks of social and economic relations, various hierarchical structures of religious, professional and other spheres. The so-called multi-level management system is beginning to manifest itself more and more clearly. It is also about the fact that at the current level of development, the boundaries between the state and society are increasingly shifting: new forms of public management are developing, the scope of cooperation between the public and private sectors is expanding, new networks of political relations are emerging, both supranational and subnational organizations are becoming increasingly important. As noted in the monograph "The Third Sector in the world: models of civic engagement in the XX-XXI centuries", modern non-governmental organizations act as the most active platform for promoting any ideas, projects and values, becoming both subjects of international relations and the object of the processes of geopolitical rivalry of various world centers of power. (p.10, RSUH Publishing Center, Moscow, 2021).
In this regard, the question arises reasonably, is it possible to identify the state with its governing bodies? Is it possible to reduce the concept of any social institution only to its governing bodies? After all, no one is going to identify, for example, a joint-stock company only with the management bodies of this company. No one believes that the University is only the rector's office and the academic council. From this point of view, the state is a politico–territorial legitimate sovereign organization of public power, which has a special apparatus for the implementation of managerial, security, and protective functions. What has been said should not be understood at all as an identification of the concept of "state" with the concept of "civil society". In civil society, in contrast to the system of state institutions, horizontal connections of people and their groups, various socio-economic communities, public institutions and relations - solidarity and competition - prevail. State power and civil society should not oppose, but complement each other, be in close cooperation to better meet the interests of individuals and social groups.
The development of civil society, the creation and formation of its various institutions - political parties, movements, public organizations, associations defending the rights of citizens and social groups, contributes to the improvement and more efficient implementation of state functions.
The identification of the state with its governing bodies seems to be a kind of substitution of concepts that is beneficial for representatives of power structures. The logic here is extremely simple: the state benefits from what is beneficial to the bureaucracy representing the authorities, and to the forces that stand behind it.
Although the connection of this problem with the issue of the power of the people under consideration may seem at first glance speculative, it is important, but more on that later.
We return to the question of "kratos". Is the people an object of power influences, or is it itself the bearer of power? The words power, authorities in everyday use, in many media publications are often synonymous with state structures, primarily executive ones. When we hear or read that the authorities have done or intend to do something, we by default understand that we are talking about these structures. If power is the people (here the concept of “people” is used primarily in a political sense, moreover, in the broadest sense, and for this reason so far in a certain abstraction), how should he exercise his power, being a sovereign? What are the ways and mechanisms of implementation?
The people can express their will through the holding of plebiscites (or referendums), which enable society to directly express their views on political issues. Within the framework of the so-called direct or plebiscite democracy. At the same time, it is well known that here we often have a wide field for manipulating the masses, demagoguery, substitution of concepts and fraud, appealing distorted and falsified information, often addressed to human prejudices and passions. There are many such examples in recent history. Take at least the time spent in 2020 . popular vote on amendments to the constitution in the Russian Federation. The people were invited to vote for the changes actually already adopted by the state bodies, camouflaging the amendments needed by the authorities with a number of populist provisions appealing to religious, patriotic, parental and other feelings and thoughts of people, giving them nothing new, but "beautifully" designed. It is necessary to pay attention to the technology tested at the voting for its implementation.
Therefore, this form of democracy is often criticized because it provides a wide field for populism and demagogy, a system of organizing mass approval of political decisions that descends from above and gives the appearance of a people to authoritarian and dictatorial regimes. Here, of course, we are not talking about fully extrapolating such a system to the practice of holding referendums in modern systems of developed representative democracy.
Another problem is that many voters ignore elections and referendums. Sometimes the number of voters does not exceed 20-30% of the electorate. Many consider politics to be separate from society, and politicians to be egoists seeking power. The practice of falsifications and mass violations of elections taking place in a number of countries repels citizens, creates an atmosphere of indifference and passivity. A considerable number of people believe that participation in political events only distracts from their own pressing affairs and family worries, and do not want to waste their time and energy on this.
In addition, any society consists of different social, professional and other groups, whose interests can differ significantly and even contradict, reaching a conflict level. Public activity is inextricably linked, on the one hand, with the presence of diversity and conflict, and on the other hand, with the desire to cooperate and act together. Politics in this sense acts as an activity within the framework of which the general rules for the functioning of society are created, preserved and enriched, as a search in a democratic society for ways to achieve agreement through the regulation of conflicts, as a means of political decisions that correspond to the will of citizens, expressed as a result of electoral and other social processes. The most important role in their implementation is played by the legal system, the principle of the rule of law as a basis. The legal system can be viewed as a way of organizing social, economic, moral and other types of behavior. Legal systems must correspond to society, at the same time they have a certain autonomy, create their own binary code, which allows them to qualify legally-illegally, legally-illegally, etc. It is important to understand who, how and why sets this binary code and how it changes. This issue is important for understanding the essence and mechanisms of the functioning of democracy as a political organization of society.
The concept that the source of law is society as a system of fair cooperation of citizens, the terms of which must be agreed upon on a reasonable basis, enjoys recognition. The sovereignty of the people is the basis of democracy. But how can they exercise their sovereign rights? And here we are dealing with the relationship between democracy and political institutions, which, according to this concept, are supposed to be given political, managerial and legal powers. In other words, the political class, the enlightened elite, the functionaries of political parties, to use the Soviet terminology, "the advanced vanguard of the people." The participation of citizens, the people consists in voting in referendums, elections, participation in various mass events, which, of course, is a very important, necessary condition for democracy, but not sufficient. A society needs to create many mechanisms and processes through which citizens can freely articulate their problems, specify their aspirations and seek solutions - both factual and normative and institutional. The question of the social and legal validity of norms and practices is resolved in the necessary communicative dynamics of developing arguments that can be rationally perceived by everyone. Legitimacy comes from legality, and legality is meaningless without legitimacy. The democratic principle should establish the methods and procedures for the legitimate institutionalization of law, and only those legal laws that have been developed in the process of public discourse can claim legitimacy. Legitimacy is realized through participation in democratic processes that allow democratic societies to practically choose and legitimize the norms, rights and institutions in force in them. Democracy should be based on a strategy of balance, on the art of compromise, on the policy of agreements, it should present a perspective of solidarity based on the principles of justice, thanks to which collective benefit will not contradict private, and when such private goals that have public significance become priorities.
It is possible to implement such a model of democracy only with the broad involvement of people in the processes of discussion, preparation and decision-making, as well as their implementation and control over these processes. Providing an opportunity for a free exchange of opinions to represent and protect their own interests and projects, and the implementation of those that have passed expert review and received public support, which is necessary for a balance of interests and a fair coupling of results.
But how to implement such a model of democracy, where the power of the people will not be decorative, but real? As noted above, participation in referendums, plebiscites, elections of authorities, holding rallies and similar events within the framework of direct or representative forms of democracy is a necessary, but insufficient condition for the real exercise of the power of the people. Moreover, they can even be used to form or legitimize authoritarian or totalitarian regimes and the decisions they make, in other words, to usurp power and suppress the people's will. It was also noted that the government and the state as a whole, although they are the most important, but only one of the institutions of public macro-governance. Social and economic structures and various kinds of religious, professional and other public formations are playing an increasingly important role today.
It should be particularly noted that the information sphere is becoming increasingly important in this area. Rapidly developing information systems and technologies have a huge impact on all spheres of public life, including political life. Modern communication technologies create a real opportunity to involve practically all politically active citizens in the process of making significant political decisions, open up broad prospects for democratic practices, the use of electronic services for collective decision-making.
It becomes obvious that the classical model of democracy needs a serious transformation, adaptation to the realities of the XXI century.
Continued.
Comments